January 28, 1869 (3)

In this land of freedom, this home of freemen, this school of liberty, though in advance ground when compared with other nations, yet our counselors are so badly educated, so wretchedly deficient in a true knowledge of the character of free institutions, that when that great question for which all other political questions were made, and which stands so high above them as not to be compared with them, that which is the foundation and only support of material and social progress, and upon which this Government was founded—human liberty and equal political and religious rights—is discussed ia this American Congress. Men, Ilepresentatives of a great people, seem to be ambitious to place on record for all time the evidence of their want of knowledge of the spirit and truth of the institutions and Government in which they live. And yet these men are called statesmen, and the world believes that they are such; a sad mistake, and sadly do we answer for it. There exists a strange fancy for past errors and oppressions; a reluctance to go forward; a Musselman stupor and hatred of progress; an inconsiderate and narrow view of men and things that continually looks backward while being thrust forward; an attempt to gather from the dull, dark past the only hope and instructions of a brighter future, a future that the past never knew and never could, because between the two there was no affinity and no common relation except that in time one was and the other unlike it, unknown to it, but inconceivably brighter, purer, grander, and better, because more just and liberal. The past type of society is monarchical, aristocratic, pro slavery oppressive, cruel, sensual, and slow to progress. The future is republican, democratic, liberal, kind, intellectual, generous, and swift in the march of the arts and sciences.

Mr. McKBB. Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to night or at any time hereafter in discussing this subject to enter at any length upon a discussion of the constitutional question involved in the bill 11 that is before the House. It is chiefly to the bill that I propose to confine my remarks. I would say, however, in regard to the amendment proposed, that while perhaps it is not such as in all respects meets my approval, and such as may be necessary for the times and for the country, yet in some shape or other I regard it as a necessity in order to secure to every citizen in the land the rights that belong to him. I think that one defect in the text of our constitution as it originally stood was that it failed to embody any declaration as to what constitutes a citizen. That defect has been cured by the fourteenth article of amendment, which has now become the fundamental law of the land. A second defect, in my opinion, in the original instrument, ia that there is no declaration in it as to what are the rights of the citizen. Until, therefore, an amendment is ingrafted upon that instrument defining clearly what a citizen s rights are, we are continually to have trouble because of the different constructions and different, legislative enactments by the different States in regard to these questions.

In regard to the proposed amendment as several gentlemen have already offered substitutes for the proposition, I have drawn one myself which 1 propose to offer at the proper time, and I will read it in order that it may be incorporated as a part of my remarks. It differs very little from those which have already been offered in effect, only perhaps changing the amendment offered by the gentleman fiora Ohio [Mr. Shellabaroer] to an affirmative proposition. It is in this language:

Every male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty oneyears and upward shall be entitled to the elective franchise ill all elections in the State iu which no shall have actual residence as shall bo prescribed by law, except such as have engaged or may hereafter engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or such as shall be duly convicted of treason, felony, or other infamous crimes: and no State shall make or enforce any law disfranchising any citizen for any other cause than herein mentioned.

In my judgment this amendment should be affirmative and not negative, and by that means we will have the right of the citizen to the elective franchise clearly defined, and behind which no State can go. That is all I propose to say in regard to this question of the amendment except to give my assent to the proposition in whatever form the majority of this House may finally submit it.

And now I propose to pass to the consideration of the bill which has been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, and in passing to the bill I will simply say in reference to the remark made by my colleague who preceded me, [Mr. Beck,] near the close of his speech, in which he uttered the language," I have no defense to make of my own State, Kentucky," that as Kentucky stands to day, the only State in all this Union that strips utterly two hundred and fifty thousand citizens of every right, I do not believe my colleague would dare come here and offer any defense for her. He followed up that with the declaration that this measure is aimed particularly at Kentucky. Perhaps it may be. There is a necessity in the declaration that it should be aimed at her. Then my colleague followed it up with the further declaration that when this Congress saw fit to strike down that proud State it would be one of the darkest hours of the Republic.

Why, Mr. Speaker, I supposed the time had gone by when the Congress or this nation was to be frightened by the cry that Kentucky stands in the way of an act of justice. We have heard that cry ever since 1861, and too often was that cry listended to during the administration of the late lamented Mr. Lincoln. I believe that the time has gone by and gone by forever when the people of this land will be any longer frightened by her threats coming officially from her Governor or from her Representatives upon this floor. I believe furthermore that the time has now come and is upon us to day when we are recreant to our duty, recreant to freedom, recreant to justice, recreant to right if we sit quietly in our places here and suffer her to trample the laws of our country under footand grind into the dust the rights of a quarter of a million of freemen.

Now, sir, the fourteenth amendment, upon which this bill is proposed to be based, has been ratified and officially proclaimed as apart of the organic law of the land. I know that my colleague threw out the intimation, "if it were an amendment;" and I know that the doctrine held by the officials of the State of Kentucky is that it has not been adopted; but I believe that it will be a long time in the future before this Government, or any part of it outside of Kentucky, will question the validity of that amendment.

The first section of the amendment reads as follows:

"Section 1. Allpersonsborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein theyreside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of tile laws."

Sir, that provision stands to day as a part of the Constitution of the United States; but without a law to enforce it it is a dead letter.

All over my own State, all over the State of Maryland, and in many parts of the unreconstructed South to day the chief places are held by men who, by the third section of this fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, are declared to be not entitled to the right to hold such offices. In my own State to day the first section of this amendment which I have read is a dead letter entirely, except so far as it is enforced in the Federal courts of our country. Not a State court in Kentucky to day admits the right of two hundred and fifty thousand colored people in that State to testify in any matter concerning their lives, their liberty, or their property in any case in which the matter at issue is between themselves and white persons. Her high officials are enforcing that state of affairs in Kentucky and defying your laws to day overriding your Constitution to day trampling it into the dust to day Without a law to enforce that constitutional amendment it stands upon your statute book to day as a simple declaration.

Now, sir, the right to pass this bill under that amendment is certainly unquestionable. There can be no constitutional question in regard to that right; but if there was such a constitutional question, as I have already said, I do not propose to argue that question. But in this state of affairs I might repeat the language of William Pitt, in the English Parliament, on the 14th day of January, 1776, on the bill to tax America. Replying to an argument which had been made on the proposition he said:

"I came not here armed at all points with law cases and acts of Parliament, with the statute book doubled down in dog s ears, to defend the cause of liberty. On such a subject I will not debate points of law, but rely for the. defense of liberty on a general principle—a constitutional principle. It is a ground on which I stand firm, and on which I dare meet any man."

I say, sir, in a case like this, when all over a part of our land the right of perhaps more than half a million of freemen, citizens of our country, are trampled by State laws into the dust, it becomes us not as men loving justice and right to stop and talk about constitutional principles. But we should go on as a matter of right; and when we are satisfied that we do right, we will not only have the approval of our own consciences, but in the end it will be demonstrated we will have acted justly. I will read the third section of the fourteenth constitutional amendment. It is as follows:

Sec. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President arid Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of cacii House, remove such disability."

This third section, as well as the first section, of the fourteenth constitutional amendment is systematically defied in my own State, openly and defiantly set at naught, and has been so ever since it was proclaimed. At least one half—and I think I do not overestimate it when I say that three fourths—of all the State officers in my own State, executive, legislative, and judicial, to day are obnoxious to that third section which I have read. Although disqualified bythis amendment they are holding offices in defiance of the same. They were elected to the offices which they now hold after this amendment had been proclaimed as a part of the fundamental law of the land, and they assumed the offices which they to day are in possession of after this amendment had been proclaimed as a part of the Constitution of the land.

More than all that, there is a particular reason why this bill should be passed, and why it should be enforced in the State of Kentucky against those men who thus dare to defy the law. In the canvasses before the people, prior to the election in August last, they openly proclaimed it their purpose not to submit to this amendment. They openly denounced it as no part of the Constitution of the United States; and when they had been elected to these offices and came to take upon themselves the oath of office the Governor of the State himself, in a public speech reported in the press, made after the election, said to those men in substance, "Go on and assume the places to which the people have chosen you, and I will see that you hold office until the terms expire for which you have been elected by the people." With such an assurance as that they went on and assumed those offices. And to day while thus acting in violation of law, they are each and every one of them engaged in grinding out the liberties of more than a quarter of a million of freemen in that State, who by the first article of this amendment are declared to be possessed of all the rights of every citizen in our land.

Now, sir, to show the spirit that animates this class of people in my own State, I have selected at random a few extracts from their declarations, which I propose to read that the House may see exactly what class of people are now controlling that State. I read first from a speech delivered by Judge Pryor at a judicial convention in one of the districts in Kentucky in the month of July last. In accepting the nomination Judge Pryor said:

Sellow citizens I desired this nomination. No man in the country ever wanted an office or a position more than I wanted this, not to gratify any personal ambition of my own or to satisfy any prejudices I mi nt have against this man or that man, but as a vindication of my right to run for and to hold an otiice if the people saw proper to give it to me. (Cheers.] And X tell you, my friends, we will hold these offices."

Still further on in his remarks he paid the following tribute to the efforts of those Kentuckians who are assistingin keeping the rebels in power in this State:

Public sentiment perhaps in its madness six years a so forgot your rights and mine, but to day the people are awake upon the subject of their own interests. Why, about three years ago, at the close of the war, a confederate (whether the cause in which ho fought was right or wrong it is not necessary to discuss here) was hardly received at his door upon his return home. He had to hide to protect himself from a writ from the Federal court. He was not. allowed to hold any office in the county, but to day they tell me, not only in the State of Kentucky, but all over this gloriou3 Union, that to have been in the confederate service is a recommendation to a man everywhere."

Loud applause followed this last declaration. This language was uttered about the time the New York convention assembled to do honor to and to do the bidding of the leading rebels of the land. It was about the time of the famous declaration of Francis P. Blair, that it would not only be the right bat the duty of the incoming administration (assuming the success of the Democratic party) to trample in the dust all the reconstruction acts ot Congress. These men there in the State of Kentucky supposed that that was coming to pass, and they were ready to aid in the work; and but for the triumphant success of the Republican party and the election to the Presidency of the great man who headed our armies in crushing out treason these very men who made these declarations would be to day engaged in the attempt to trample in the dust all these laws enacted by the Congress of the country. Furthermore, at that same convention J. D. Lillard, a representative in the Legislature of Kentucky, offered himself as a candidate for the position of Commonwealth s attorney, and at the conclusion of his speech, as bitter and malignant as that of Judge Pryor, he used this language:

"That God Almighty may, in His wrath, speed the arrow of death to the base hearts of those who have crushed the liberties of this land and this people, is my living desire, and will bemy dying prayer.

And the declaration like that of JudgePryor, was received with loud applause. What do these men mean by having "crushed the liberties of this land and this people?" They mean the crushing that the loyal heart of the country, sustained by the strong arm of our gallant citizens, gave to the cause of treason, which these men advocated in the past and are enacting to day.

Such are a few of the declarations made by these men who now hold office in my State, and these compare favorably with the expressions of all those who made canvasses and speeches in that contest. I will read also from a speech delivered by General John S. Williams (a general in the' confederate service) at a meeting held in the city of Lexington, in the district which my colleague has the honor to represent on this floor, and at his very home. General Williams is thus reported:

"He prided liimselfuponhisservicein a rebellious cause and boasted of his achievements in furtherance of treason. He said he repented of nothing, a ked no pardon for anything, and was sorry only that a failure was made to accomplish a dissolution of the Union. He said another war would soon be upon us, and when it came he would again buckle 011 his armor and fight for the causeso recently lost. Such, sir, is the character of the men who now hold in their hands the destinies of that State, and who are engaged in this work of trampling the law and the Constitution of the country into the dust, while we sit here and hesitate as to the question whether we have the right to pass a law to stop that sort ot work. It is true that this man Williams was notnominated for theofficeof Commonwealth s attorney in that district; but this was only because another man who had done more service than he had for the confederate cause and stood higher with them beat him in the convention. It is equally true that a distinguished relative of a man once Vice President of the United States, and bearing the same name, W. C. P. Breckinridge, who had also done gallant service in the cause of the confederacy, also stood before that convention and was beaten, but was beaten because he had dared to say publicly that he favored the repeal of the laws which keep two hundred and fifty thouusand people of the State of Kentucky out of her courts as witnesses.

Now, sir, these people in the State of Kentucky have not changed their opinions in regard to this matter. They hold to day the identical opinions which they have held heretofore, and are equally bitter and vindictive as then. I will read now, sir, from an article published in the Clark County Democrat on the 14th of January in the present year, and in the district which my colleague [Mr. Beck] has the honor to represent on this floor. Speaking of this question—of this amendment to the Constitution and this proposition for relieving political disabilities—the editorial 1 have referred to uses this language:

"Relieving Disabilities —V hen the war closed it "was apparent to the leaders ot the Radical party that under existing laws none of the confederates could ever be convicted of treason or any other crime, because they had been warranted in their course by the fundamental principles of the American Government. The farce of indicting Jeff. Davis and a few other prominent leaders was gone through with to satisfy popular clamor in the North, but no lawyer of any standing in that section ever expected to hear of their conviction unless it was brought about through the medium of that packed jury which the infamous Judge Underwood assured a congressional committee he could easily empannel. It was plainly to be seen, moreover, that the chiefs of the so called rebellion would have the confidence of their own people in a greater degree than ever, and that their mfiucnco would gradually extend northwardly from an innate consciousness on the part ot the Yankee nation that these same men had been right from the beginning. To do away with this apprehended danger the fourteenth amendment, as it is called, was devised, by one of the provisions ot which nearly all in the South who ever held any office of profit or honor before the war under the State or Federal Government are ostracised from public life and disabled from holding any position to which an admiring constituency may choose to elect them. This is an outrageous violation of the plainest and simplest provisions of our organic law and the most clearly defined principles of American libCr t 3Xt prescribes a punishmentforan offense committed long before its enactm en t and deprives the people, who aie sovereign, of the precious privilege which they have always enjoyed heretofore, of electing to official stations their representative men. it is claimed by the Radicals that this infamous attempt to rob men whom the southern people honor and respect of their rights has succeeded, but they know full well that such is not the case. It has neveryet been ratified in aproper manner by three fourths ot the States, and even some of those which really gave their sanction have since retracted. Ne man with a grain of sense believes that the action of the bogus carpet bag States down South in a matter of so great moment will be allowed to stand after the Republican party has met that fate to which its crimes are so rapidly hastening its steps. ,The constitutional amendment and the reconstruction lawswiHthen be buried under the same mountain of contempt. Congress is acting on the assumption that the so called amendment has become alaw, and proceeds to relieve from its disabilities those who will eat dirt and kiss the holy ICaaba known to school children as Plymouth Rock. Occasionally, when in a gracious mood, it relents so far as to forgive some good Democrat his sins, and has even permitted an unrepentant cxrebcl major general to become a member of Congress and take his seat by the side of the immaculate loyalists therein assembled, The question of rclje n those officials in this State who are disabled by the so called amendment is now agitating a certain circle in Washington. Dr Breckinridge who had near and dear relatives in the so called William Brown, who is said to be a gentleman; General .Burbridge, who has some ax to grind perhaps; and other pure bloods favor the proposition; but the active ruling members of the party in this State are bit teiiy opposed, because yet hopeful of getting the offices themselves.

"The gentlemen now filling the public places m this Commonwealth were selected by the people because believed to hate the Radicals with an especial hatred. If any of them should be relieved by congressional enactment of disabilities which their constituents considered their chief glory and recommendation there will be good ground for suspecting that, they have weakened in the faith.

"We know ot none who, according to Radical ideas, are entitled to any favors on account of ioyalty, and should any be relieved it will k® satisfactory evidence to us that either Congress has been deceived or some quondam brother hasstr: the path of rectitude. Let no true Kentucky ask such a favor of Ben. Butleb and the scoundrels who now hold the reins of power. There is no fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, and thecourts Will so decide after awhile. Be patient. If ousted now, you will bo elevated still higherin that good time coming, whose dawning made bright the political sky of Ke tncky in 186G, and has since spread to Conned ieut, Maryland, Delaware, California, Oregon, Louisiana, and Georgia."

That is the language of a Democratic paper, and reflecting the sentiments of the Democratic party in the State of Kentucky to day It was published in the district represented by my colleague who has preceded me on the floor.

1 have another article here of the same tenor from the Frankfort Yeoman, published at the seat of government and edited by J. Stoddard Johnson, who had the honor of being sent on here by the electors of the State of Kentucky to bear the vote of that State in the presidential election, in which this language occurs. I read the conclusion of the article, dated June 16, 1869:

"We maintain that said article constitutes no part of the Constitution, for various reasons, and that the courts must so decide; first, because it was not submitted to the States by a vote of two thirds of the Congress of the United States, but only two thirds of a rump; second, because the States of Ohio, New Jersey, and Oregon having rescinded the action of their respective Legislatures ratifying the said amendment before its promulgation it has not received the ratification of the requisite three fourths of the States—said three States being necessary to make up that number; and third, because the pretended ratification by the southern States is utterly void and of no effect, the Legislatures ratifying having been elected under the so called reconstruction acts, which are unconstitutional, and they, constituting the foundation, falling, the whole superstructure must fall also. But enough for the present."

That is the spirit of the party to day a party which is dominant in my own State, a party which, as I have said, defies all your laws on this question; a party which refuses to submit to the verdict of the nation, rendered first in the field and then ratified by the voice of the loyal millions at the ballot box

I have other extracts which I might read showing the same tone and of the same tenor by other prominent individuals in that State and from their press. The men who made these declarations (some of them) and some of those who were elected to office indorsing and uttering such sentiments, are here to day before a committee of this House asking that their disabilities be removed; and without ever having retracted a single statement, and without today retracting the opinions they held then and now hold, they ask this Congress to relieve their disabilities that they may continue to hold office, fearing the Federal courts, notwithstanding their boasts. When they learn to do justice to others it will be time for us to grant relief to them. I trust the day may soon come when we can with safety relieve them all. but that day should not come until these men not only submit to the laws, which we intend shall not be a matter of choice with them, but until they go to work and aid in seeing that justice is done to every citizen of the State, and that all have enforced through her own courts the same equal and exact justice, and the same equal political rights which as men and as citizens we propose to declare they shall have irrespective of race or color. When they as a party do this, then, for one, and I think I speak the sentiments of the party I represent from my State, I shall be willing to see all their disabilities removed; but, sir, not until then. Mr. Speaker, all over the State ot Kentucky for the last two years we have haci outrage upon outrage, murder upon murder, assassinations by night and by day by the Kuklux Klan, or Regulators, or whatever you may choose to call them. In the dead hour of the night they havegone to men s houses, dragged them from their beds, beaten them and murdered them in the presence of their families, taken them out and hanged them; yet, sir, notwithstanding all this, there is not a single case on the record of that State where one single man engaged in this system of outlawry has been either arrested or punished for the commission of these crimes. Can you expect otherwise when the highest officials in the State themselves openly systematically, and daily violate the laws ot the land? First, sir, you must remove those whe countenance violations of the law, violations of the statute, and who themselves trample your own laws in the dust. Until you have done that you cannot expect to have peace in that State, the execution of the laws of the land, or any protection of life and property. I might read many extracts in support of what I have said, and to show that these outrages take place almost within gunshot of the Governor s mansion, and yet nothing is done to prevent them. I will read from an extract from the Frankfort Commonwealth of a late date:

Murder —On Sunday night last a man named Samuel -Davis, jr., who was confined in the Mercer county jail on a charge of counterfeiting, was taken therefrom by a body of' Regulators,' and hung a short distance from Harrodsburg, on the Lexington turnpike. This man Davis was at one time in the Federal Army. A number of other prisoners in the jail, on charges of murder, &c., were not disturbed." And another from the Lexington Statesman, January 14, 1869:

Kul lux Outrages—Them WAin One Man, and Fire on Ike House of Another— A correspondent writes us trom Lincoln county that on the night of Saturday, the 2d of January, some ten or twelve Kuklux went to the house of W. Baker, in that county, and took him off some distance from it and whipped him unmetoifuliy. Baker begged them to end. his troubles by shooting him; but the fiends preferred theseverer punishment of lashing and lacerating his flesh. Baker issaid to be a inanof good character, respected by his neighbors. He is a Republican. Alter whipping Baker they went to the house of Jesse Davis, m tho same county. A dog gave the alarm and aroused Davis. Xhey shot the dog, and asked Davis to come out, representing themselves as hunters who had lost their way. Davis refused to corao out, but invited them to come m the house. This they would not do; and seeing that Davis would not come out they commenced firing upon the house. One of the balls went through the door and struck the bedstead that contained Davis s little children. After the firing ceased, Davis lit a candle and again invited the fellows in, being now prepared for them. They refused to accept the invitation."

I have many other extracts, all showing the truth of the declaration of what 1 have said, bat it is unnecessary to insert them.

Mr. Speaker, there is no law in my State to protect the two hundred and fifty thousand freemen of color who are there. I wish to read one extract from the last annual message of the Governor to show what is the spirit which animates him. Referring to a case of murder by two citizens in Lewis county, Governor Stevenson says iu his message to the General Assembly:

"But recently two persons, JohnBlyew andGteorgje Kilinard, were arrested and indicted in the Lewis circuit court of Kentucky for alleged murders committed by them in Lewis county upon the 30th of August, 1808, a place over which the Juriftdtcliun of the United States did not extend, and while so in custody of a State court of competent and unquestioned jurisdiction to try them, these two prisoners were, by the coercivc process of the Federal court, forcibly taken from the custody of the State authority, and against its consent, to Louisville."

Here, sir, we have the declaration of the Governor of the State of Kentucky, in his official message, that your jurisdiction does not extend over Kentucky. It is in regard to the case of an atrocious murder in Lewis county, Kentucky, and this is only one example of the many that have occurred in that State during the last two years. The house of an old man was entered at night by these two men, Blyew and Iiinnard, and the old man and his wife were murdered in the most atrocious and brutal manner and without any cause whatever. A small boyof about eleven years of age, agrandson, perhaps, of that old, worthy, and respectable couple, the man and his wife, was also beaten by these two men and left for dead. Not another human being witnessed the murder except these persons and one little child, who was concealed and was too young to testify. The only testimony that could be bad in regard to the murder was that of the colored boy, whom the murderers left for dead but who recovered. It occurred in my own district, and I know the circumstances. By the laws of the State of Kentucky had there been twenty colored men present at that scene of death there is no court in the State where one of them could have opened his mouth to testify against the murderers. In defiance of your fourteenth amendment, by laws enforced by men elected and holding office against its provisions, no man of color who might have witnessed that murder could have been heard in the courts of Kentucky. The perpetrators of the foul deed were white men, and could not be convicted in the State courts, because no person of color could testify against them. But your Federal courts came to the rescue. The men were taken to Louisville, tried and convicted in the United States circuit court, and condemned to death, and but for the fact that the State of "Kentucky, under the advice of her Governor, employs counsel to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, they would have suffered the penalty of the law ere this.

Now, sir, the spirit of these colored people of Kentucky is everywhere one of submission and obedience to law. They are far from being arrogant. They live there at their peril. Today I can walk in broad daylight into the cabin of any colored man and rob him of all he possesses in the presence of all his family, and there is no court of Kentucky that will convict me; to day I can enter the church where one of the colored ministers preaches to his flock, and in the presence of his own congregation drag him from the altar and murder him on the spot, and there is no court of Kentucky that can convict me unless a white person saw the deed. It is against such laws as these, against the men of Kentucky who uphold these infamous enactments in direct conflict with your Constitution and your laws, that this bill is aimed.

I cannot do better in presenting the cause of these two hundred and fifty thousand people of my own State than to read a petition presented by a mass convention of these people, held at the city of Lexington in the month of November, 1867, to the Legislature, asking only the right to testify in the courts of justice. I read it because the language is perhaps better than I can use:

"Much of the property now constitutingthe aggregate wealth of Kentucky has been acquired or improved, in whole or in part, by our labor. None know better than the citizens of this State how we have protected and cared for both the property and the lives of our former owners. Suddenly freed by act of war we were mostly thrown upon our own resources, without property or means of protecting what little we now have, the product of our own toil and care. It is larceny to steal it from us; it is murder to feloniously deprive one of our people of his life. Is there any member of your honorable body who would offer inducement to crime, outia ge and lawlessness by saying that the white man s property and the white man s life are protected under our law, but the property and the life of a black man are unworthy of protection, and beyond the pale of our law? We hope not; but this is what the law now says, for we can be despoiled of our property, our females may be outraged, our school teachers shot down at theirdesks, and our ministers murdered in their pulpits by any person lawless enough to do so, and the sad history of the past few years must convince you that many men, thus lawless, live in Kentucky, and we have no remedy in the courts, if the only witnesses happen to have African blood in their veins, no matter how truthful or intelligent they may be. On many of the lonely farms of our State, in the absence of the owner the wife and daughter are the only white persons remaining.

llisproperty maybe stolen, his wife and daughter may be outraged and murdered during his absence, in the presence ofevery colored servant on the place, by a white man, and the villian go free of punishment if no white man witnesses the awful crime. We believe that much good will accrue, both to the white and the black people, when this right of testimony is given to our people in all cases; and thus society will be more effectually protected from crime of every character than it is at present. We do not expect by our rights of testimony to influence wrongfully the action of any court or jury, but simply desire the right of any of our people to go before any court or jury and testify to matters within their knowledge, the testimony to go f r what it is worth under the circumstances attending every case. And that equal and exact justice may be administered to both white and black, we ask that all disqualifications on account of race or color, in so far as they apply to testifying, be removed, and that tho plaintiffs and defendants in every action, whether white or black men, shall be made competent witnesses, with the right to testify iu their own behalf, subject only to such exceptions as are made for white men.

For this simple act of justice, as a poor and oppressed race, we appeal to you by every consideration of civilization and love of right. And for your favorable action will ever pray."

Such was the humble appeal of these people, citizens of this country, and under the Constitution and laws entitled to all the rights which we ourselves possess, made to the Legislature of Kentucky in 1867. That Legislature has sat through two winters at the capital of the State, and never so much as a response or a movement has been made by any Democratic member of the Legislature in the State looking to the granting of this simple right asked by these downtrodden people. Such is the state of affairs there. Then, sir, I say it behooves us, as an act of justice to these men whom we have declared entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizens by our law, to set aside the men who now enforce these wrongs against them.

One word more, and I shall conclude. I have spoken chiefly iu regard to the third and fourth sections of the bill reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. I have a word to say in regard to the first part of the bill, that relating to the right of suffrage. As I have said, 1 have no constitutional arguments to make on this matter. If I ever had any doubts in regard to the constitutionality and the right of Congress to legislate on the subject of suffrage, as I confess I have had, all that doubt was removed when this fourteenth amendment was declared part of the fundamental law of the land; and I am not sure but the doubts which I had upon the question were doubts which I ought neverto have entertained. But, sir, when this fourteenth amendment was adopted, which made all these people citizens, and declared that they should he entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizens, I had no longer any doubt as to the constitutional right of the Congress of the United States to declare that these men shall be voters in any and every State on the same footing with white men. You cannot in any manner so forcibly—I might say you cannot in any manner at all—secure to a man the protection of his rights and immunities in any other way in a free republic like this than by giving into his hands the ballot.

I have no further constitutional argument to make; but as a matter of justice, as a matter of right, as a matter necessary to enforce that which is already a part of the Constitution of our country, I give my voice and my vote for this measure, believing that while we may secure the same ends by the amendment which is proposed we shall secure it more efficiently by the passage of this bill. In so doing we shall do an act of justice, which, as a party pledged to the rights of man, we owe to every citizen of this land. I believe, furthermore, that every day we hesitate to do this simple act of justice, we, as the representative body of the nation, putourselves in the position before the world of having declared in favor of a principle which we have not the courage to carry out.

Mr. MILLER addressed the House. [See Appendix.]

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, ithas been truly said that the Republican party is a party of progress. Whether its progress is in the direction of the greatest good of the greatest number is quite a different question. On the limitless subject of reconstruction the party has made startling advances from one position to another, pausing at each successive advance only sufficient time to pall its stragglers into line, satisfy the timid and wavering by declaring the given step a finality, and thus, having restored confidence among its own adherents, prepare the way for still more alarming advances in what it pleases to term the path of progress.

From the moment when the proclamation of emancipation was under consideration among politicians, and being by them urged upon President Lincoln, down through a series of events, including the arming of negroes as soldiers, their recognition as citizens, the bestowal upon them of the elective franchise in the States lately in rebellion, their elevation to office, and assured control of those States by means of white disfranchisement, the exclusion of those States from practical union with the others until acquiescence could be secured in these revolutionary measures, until the present moment, not a plan has been proposed or a measure advanced on the subject of reconstruction without a solemn assurance by the party to the people that the one plan or measure was the only one intended or upon which the public would be called to pass its sanction. Yet ever as each advance has been made, acq uiescen ce secured, and the public led to believe that all was well, some one more bold and adventurous than his fellows, or some group constituting the vanguard of the grand political army, has always been ready to discover the necessity of another advance, and on each occasion the announcement has been ma e that the "life of the nation" was in peril and the peril could only be averted by the sanction of new and untried measures and adoption of experiments often urged outside of the Constitution.

The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Boutwell,] ill his speech advocating the pendingbillaud amendment, declares with most commendable candor that" the Republican party must move forward and consummate the great work it has undertaken." What that great work is he informs us in another sentence, when he says;

Sir, X doubt not that nine tenths of the Republican party of the country are in favor of manhood suffrage. One tenth of the party are not in favor of it, and they constitute the great obstacle in the way of perfecting this benign measure. For one, I am in favor of taking the responsibility of the position which we occupy. We are responsible for universal suffrage asoneof the crowningmeasuresof an administration of eight years duration to be eontinuedfor four years by the judgment of the people already pronounced. The great ld iority of the people—and in this connection X will say thatby 4 the people l mean those who on the3d of November lastsupported General Grant for the Presidency—the great majority of them expect of us tnc consummation of this plan."

Sir, according to this declaration the great mass of the Republican party expect the passage of a law by Congress to carry negro suffrage into all the States North as well as South, ft is not my province to answer for the Republican party, nor assume what it should expect, but il it does expect what the gentleman from Massachusetts has declared, it must be because it has at "last learned to expect just what its leaders promise to avoid. Why, Mr. Speaker, only last May, when the party assembled by its delegates in Chicago and nominated General Grant, itannounced its political creed, the very first article of which congratulates the country on the assured success of the reconstruction policy of Congress. Did the reconstruction policy of Congress then demand an extension of suffrage to negroes in Illinois and Ohio; and did that convention promise or propose to assume new ground upon the subject? Let us see if any one of their declarations in that political creed gave room for the expectation which "the people" are supposed to share on this subject. In the second resolution the party declared as follows:

II. The guarantee by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men at tho South was demanded by every consideration of public safety, of gratitude, and of justice, and must be maintained; while the question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States."

Sir, it is as I said a moment ago, apologizing for what the party had done, but promising forbearance in the future. That convention appealed to the gratitude and magnanimity as well as the fears of thepeople to indorse what had been done in giving the negroes unlimited political power in the South, and in order to avoid defection in the ranks and hold the wavering in their party allegiance the convention further declared its policy as to the North by adding the declaration that "the question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States.",

Sir, if I remember aright the gentleman from Massachusetts was content with that platform. Upon it he went before the people advocating the election of the nominees of that convention, and in voting for those candidates he indorsed the declaration of his part}', that the question which he now proposes to settle, or rather to unsettle, by congressional act, properly belonged to the several States, and should only be decided by them, each acting for itself. Sir, the nominees of that convention stand before the people of the United States pledged to maintain the rights of each State to regulate the question of suffrage for itself, except in cases where the people had by rebelliou forfeited all political rights according to the theory of the party, .and only lived and moved and had their being" by the merciful permission of the Congress of the United States. When the distinguished gentleman who for years has presided with such signal ability over the deliberations of this body accepted a nomination from that convention for still higher honors than those he has so worthily won in this Hall, he pledged to his followers and supporters the influence of his high position to prevent just such legislation as is now proposed, by indorsing the proposition that, except in rebellious States, the question of suffrage properly belongs to the States themselves.

But, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the distinguished gentleman who opened the discussion in favor of this measure declares that "universal suffrage is one of the crowning measures of an administration of eight years' duration," thereby assuming its indorsement by President Lincoln during his lifetime, it may not be inappropriate to recur to some of his expressions upon this subject. Among his earliest utterances on this question were his declarations in a joint discussion with Senator Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, while they were rival candidates for the United States Senate in 1858. In his speech on that occasion, he says:

"I will say, then, tha t I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that X am not nor ever have been in favor of making votes or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold ottice, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will sayin addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and interior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Such were his views when by the unanimous voice of his party in Illinois he was called to dispute senatorial honors with one whom he had designated as the" Napoleon of American politics." But if it be assumed that his views were modified or his sentiments changed by the war or its incidents let me refer to a much later declaration. On the 14th of August, 1862, a delegation of free men of color waited upon President Lincoln, and an interview was held, which is described in MePherson s History of the Rebellion as follows:

"Having all been seated, the President informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress and placed at his disposal lor the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, j s it had a long Mnc been his inclination, to favor that cause. 'And why,' he asked,' should the people of your race bo coloonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is perhaps the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us; while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."* r* t "Itis better for us both, therefore, to be separated."

Such were the last declarations of Mr. Lincoln on this subject. He declares a" broad difference" between the races— this bill assumes equality. He favored a separation—this bill proposes a perpetual union. He insisted that both races suffered from contact—this bill anticipates a joint exercise of political power by whites and blacks throughout the Union, terms such joint exercise the crowning measure of reconstruction, and places the whole future of our country in the partial control of an inferior race.

But, sir, my opposition to this bill is based not so much upon the fact that it vests full political rights and privileges in an inferor race as upon the more important fact that by it Congress arrogates all power over what our Constitution regards as the proper subject of State action exclusively; and rising above the views of individuals and the, pledges of party, let us examine first the question, has Congress the constitutional right to pass this bill? Assuming that the argument of the gentleman, from Massachusetts iu favor of this exercise of power presents the subject in its strongest light, I find him claiming to derive that power from three several clauses in the Constitution, each of which he claims embodies a grant of power in the direction he proposes to act. Let me very briefly examine each:

Article one, section four, reads as follows, and is the clause first relied upon as a grant of power to Congress:

"The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State bythe Legislature thereof; but Congress may at anytime, by law, make or alter such regulations except as to the places of choosing Senators."

This clause undoubtedly gives to Congress the right to make or to alter regulations in the States as to the time and manner of electing members of Congress—nothing more. The whole article treats of the elections, returns and qualifications of members of the two Houses of Congress, and the mode of organizing those Houses and conducting business. It provides for two Senators from each State, and designates the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled until the 'next enumeration of inhabitants. For the purpose, as is claimed, of perpetuating the Government and securing the continued existence of both branches of Congress, the authority was given to Congress to "make or alter" regulations regarding the election of its own members except as to the places of choosing Senators. But from what portion of this section is it claimed that Congress derives a right to prescribe the qualifiation of voters in Illinois? We are told that it results from or is connected with the right to make or alter regulations as to the "manner" of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. The distinguished gentleman from whom I have already quoted, in commenting oil the "manner" of elections, says:

"It includes, as I maintain, everything relating to an election, from tho qualification of the elector to the deposit of his ballot in the box."

If that view of the extended meaning and significance of the word" manner" be correct, then the whole sentence is liable to an objection never before urged against any part of our Constitution. 1 have been taught to regard that instrument as embodying the perfection of human reason, as expressing in few words all itintended and avoiding tautology and redundancy iu language. But if "manner" in this clause includes' 'everything relating to an election,'' then manifestly it must include both the time and place of that election, for both are essential ideas in connection with the whole subject. This rule of interpretation throws ridicule upon the instrument itself, and is a reflection upon the wisdom of our fathers in framing it. But it is asserted that debates in the several State conventions on the question of ratifying the Constitution afford means of interpretation of given clauses of that instrument, and that such debates show that the uniform opinion existed that by this clause Congress would have the right to prescribe the qualification of voters in the several States as connected with the manner of electing Senators and Representatives. Let us nnderstant that at the time the several States acted upon the Constitution the public mind was divided on the question of its adoption, and those opposed to its adoption based their objections mainly on the allegation that in the instrument the independence and identity of the several States was not sufficiently guarded. Fearing the exercise of dangerous powers by Congress, and jealous of the rights of the States as sovereigns, they predicted that under various clauses Congress would exercise powers not really intended to be granted; and their predictions that Congress would claim the right to do certain things is now distorted into an admission of the absolute right in Congress to do those very things which they, in fear, predicted. When it was proposed to arm negroes and place them in the army as soldiers those objecting to the measure—not exclusively Democrats—based their objection in part upon the assumption that those who made them soldiers during the war would ciaim that justice would require that they be vested with political rights after the war. Did that objection admit in advance the justice and policy of enfranchising them at the close of the war? By no means. During the pendency of the so called fourteenth amendment, which assumed to make citizens of negroes, Democrats predicted that in the event the amendment should be adopted those advocating it would insist that one of the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship was the elective franchise. And now that such prediction has been verified, are we estopped from denying that such claim on the part of the advocates of that amendment is just and well founded in law and fact?

These questions indicate the position and views of those who predicted in an early day of our. Government that Congress would ultimately wield certain powers to which they objected. In each case the prediction has been verified, and in each case the prediction has been pointed to as a justification in advance of the very thing to which the objection was made.

But, sir, we need not resort to doubtful language or impassioned utterance to determine how our fathers viewed this question of power under the clause in contemplation. 1 will show what was meant by the word" manner," as used in this clause, and it will be found by high authority to mean just what the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts said it did not mean. One of the best, if not the very best of American writers on the Constitution, its interpretation, limitations, and restrictions, was Justice Joseph Story. In his comments upon t he clause in question he reviews the argument of those advocating and opposing the Constitution, or this part of it, and continues: "Such were the objections, and such was the reasoning by which they were met, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. A period of forty years has passed by without any atteinptby Congress to make any regulations, or interfere in the slightest degree with the elections of members of Congress. Tiie States now regulate the time, the place, and the manner of elections, in a practical sense exclusively."

By this extract it will appear that in his judgment this right in Congress, whatever it might be, related to the election of members of Congress exclusively. But he defines what he understands by flic "manner" as follows: "The manner is very various, and perhaps the power lias been exerted [by States] m some instances under the influence of local or party feelings to an extent which is indefensible in principle and policy. There is no uniformity in the choice or in the mode of election. In someStates thercprescntatives are chosen by a general ticket for the whole State; in others they are chosen singly in districts; in others they are chosen in districts composed of a population sufficient to elect two or three representatives; and in others the districts are sometimes single and sometimes united in the choice. In some States the candidate must have a majority of all the votes to entitle him to be deemed elected; in others (as it is in England) it is sufficient if he hasap urality of votes. In some of the States the choice is by the voters viva voce; in others it is by ballot."

Such was the view of this eminent writer as to what was embraced in the expression" manner of electing;" and it will be noticed that while he states the great diversity of manner in the different States, he refers only to the districts within which elections are held, the proportion of votes required by various States to elect, and the two ways of casting those votes by the elector.

To illustrate, let me refer to my own State. Before the census of 1860 was completed Congress apportioned to Illinois thirteen representatives. The State Legislature provided thirteen districts wherein they should be severally elected, but after the adjournment of the Illinois Legislature, and on full review, Congress decided that the population of that State entitled it to fourteen Representatives. The session of the Legislature would not occur in time to correct the apportionment of congressional districts, and the exigencies of the period, as well as the right of the State, required a full representation. Under this right "to regulate the manner of electingRepresentatives" Congress, adopting or rather not disturbing the thirteen districts created by State act, provided by joint resolution for the election of the fourteenth member by vote of the whole State. It followed State action, so far as the State had acted at all, and where from lack of opportunity the State had not acted it proceeded in harmony with and in obedience to all the State regulations, never once assuming to regulate either the qualification of the voter or the deposit of the ballot. Why, Mr. Speaker, with the great diversity then and now existing in different States as to the qualifications of voters, Justice Story would hardly omit to refer to that fact had he deemed that question embraced in the expression" manner of electing." We, then, are authorized to conclude that Story dissents when the learned and eloquent gentleman from Massachusetts asserts that the term "manner" embraces everything from the qualification of the voter to the deposit of the ballot. But if this quotation from Story be deemed negative in its character, I refer to his affirmative statements in another part of his work, where he treats directly of the qualification of voters. Section two of article one reads as follows:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications required for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." After commenting upon the first clause in this section the learned writer discusses the qualification of voters, and vindicates the wisdom of our fathers in leaving that to be determ ined by the several States, and in this connection uses the following emphatic language: When the revolution brought about the separation of the colonies and they formed themselves into independent States a very striking diversity was observable in the original constitutions adopted by them, and a like diversity has pervaded all the constitutions of the new States which have since grown up, and all the revised constitutions of the old States which have received the final ratification of the people. In some of the States the right of suffrage depends upon a certain length of residence and payment of taxes; in others upon mere citizenship and residence; ill others upon the possession of a freehold or some estate of a particular value, or upon the payment of taxes or performance of some public duty, such as service in the militia or on the highways. In no two of these State constitutions will it be found that the qualifications of the voters are settled upon the same uniform basis. So that we have the most abundant proofs that among a tree and enlightened people, convened for the purpose of establishing their own forms of government and the rights of their own voters, the question as to the due regulation of the qualifications has been deemed a mere matter of State policy, and varied to meet the wants, to suit the prejudices, and to foster the interests of the majority."

With this understanding the clause under consideration was adopted by unanimous vote in the convention of 1787, and in commenting upon it the Federalist makes the passing remark, It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established by the State itself."

The next clause relied on by those claiming this power is as follows:

"The United States shall guaranty to every Stato in this Union a republican form of government."

Having on a former occasion given my views of this clause I will be very brief in considering it here. It is assumed by those advocating congressional power over States that the word "guarantee" is used in the sense of making, erecting, building. This error leads to others still more grave, which would sanction a tyrannical usurpation on the part of Congress in entering into a State, and under pretense of guarantying a republican form of government impose one repugnant to all the ideas of our fathers. The truth is, when properly understood, this clause is really a safeguard against intervention from abroad as well as from the effectof violentoutbreakathome. The States as such existed at the time this clause was adopted. Each had a form of government, and in yielding in part their sovereignty to a general government by express grant and enumerated powers they naturally desired some assurance that the power they were yielding for the general good would not in turn be used for the destruction of their preexisting State governments. Being called on to surrender the power to make war or keep armies or create fleets, the States respectively desired some assurance that in case their existence or either of them should be threatened some Power would, if necessary, make war in their defense; in other words, defend their governments to them as they theu existed, or as they might thereafter see fit to change them. They did not wish Congress to make or create governments for them, but only to guaranty, and the very term "guarantee" presupposes the existence of the thing to be guarantied. That I am right in this construction I will show by the same author I have heretofore quoted. After vindicating the necessity of the clause in question, he states in form of a question the strongest view our antagonists urge, and himself proceeds to answer it:

"It may be asked what need there could be of such a precaution, and whether it may not become a pretext for alterations in the State governments without the concurrence of the States themselves. These questions admit of ready answers. If the interposition of tbeGeneral Government should not be needed the provision for such an event will be a harmless superfluity only in the constitution. But who can say what experiments may be produced by the caprice of particular States, by the ambition ot enterprising leaders, or by the intrigue of foreign Powers? To the second question it may be answered that if the General Government should interpose by virtue of this constitutional authority it will be of course bound to pursue the authority. Butthe authority extends no further than to a guarantee of a republican form of government, which supposes a preexisting government of the form which is to be guarantied. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States they areguaran tied bytheFederal Constitution. Whenever the States may cho se to substitute other republican forms they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is that they shall not exchange republican for anti republican constitutions; a restriction which it is presumed, will hardly be considered a grievance."

By this, sir, it will be seen that the continued governments of the States under their own chosen forms was secured by this very clause, and in adopting it it was pledged to those States not only that Congress would not itself interfere with their several State governments, but would neither permit foreign or domestic foes to interfere. Such was the nature of the guarantee, and properly considered it pledged Congress against just such intervention in State affairs as this bill provides.

But, sir, the next argument is that this amendment is necessary to" preserve the life of the nation." Great God! what outrages have not been perpetrated under pretense of saving the life of the nation!" Under that pretense liberty of speech has been denied, the press has been muzzled or perverted, the right of the citizen outraged, and his person incarcerated in dungeons in violation of law; and now, under the same pretense, the States which furnish the foundation upon which the superstructure of Union is based are to be degraded to the lowest level for the mere sake of party and to secure party results in future. "The life of the nation!" Why, sir, the rights of States constitute the life of the nation, not the pernicious doctrine of State s lights asserted by Massachusetts in resisting the fugitive slave law, nor by South Carolina in asserting control of Federal property within the limits of the State, but the doctrine based on a balance of power admitting variety, yet maintaining harmony throughout the whole system. It is the doctrine asserted by the State of Illinois in her sovereign capacity, adopting a State motto: "State sovereignty; national Union." Speaking of Illinois reminds me of the last test vote in that State on the subject of political rights to the negro. The proposition was squarely submitted to the people, "Shall negroes have the right of the ballot in Illinois?" and by over one hundred thousand majority our people answered," No."

That was in 1862. Has any event happened since 1862 to satisfy this Congress that Illinois is more ready for mixed suffrage in 1869 than in 1862? Will our fourteen Representatives of the sovereign people of Illinois here to day violate their last authoritative instruction upon this point under pretense that they are aiding Massachusetts to save the life of the nation, or will these fourteen Representatives unite as one man in obedience to the almost unanimous voice of Illinois, and assert in the language of Douglas," This is a white man s Government, made by white men for white men and their descendants forever," and indorse all that is correct in the second plank of the Chicago platform by declaring again that suffrage is a question properly belonging to the States? But to recur for a moment to the expression used by the eloquent advocate who leads in favor of this bill, [Mr. Boutwell,.] "preserving the life of the nation." It seems to me, sir, he has confounded the nation with the Radical party. I can readily understand that this measure is needed to save the life of the Radical party; if, indeed, even this can save it; and I think that is really the meaning of the gentleman himself, for in the eloquent peroration of his speech, in appealing directly to his party to rally to the support of the bill, he admonishes them that there is for the party power on one side and ruin on the other."

But, sir, it is urged with great confidence by those advocating this bill that if Congress has never possessed this doubted ordisputed power until of late it certainly has a clear and express grant of that power in the so called fourteenth article of amendment. Before considering that article, however, let me remark how passing strange it is that no considerable number of our opponents agree as to the source from which this disputed power is, if at all, derived. If it oe in Congress it must be there by virtue of an express grant on the one hand or a clear prohibition of such power in the States by the Consti ution on the other, for by the tenth article of amendment it is asserted that—

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

Of those in the Republican party who claim the power to have been granted in the Constitution hardly two will agree as to which clause grants it. One says one section, another a different section; still another claims that it is derived from the joint operation of several clauses or sections combined, and not a small proportion of these theorists, ambitious of results but reckless of means claim that the right exists in the nature of the case, and is based on the right of a nation to save its own life." Before this argument" outside of the Constitution" can have force it must be found or demonstrated, first, that the" life of the nation" is imperiled by the refusal of Illinois, Ohio, and oilier States lo give the ballot to the negro; and second, that congressional intervention in the affairs of those States without their consent, and in violation ol constitutional limitations and party pledges alike, will save the imperiled life of the nation, and that nothing else will.

But, sir, this appeal to aid in saving the life of the nation is only, as of old, a cry to rally the party followers and bring the stragglers into line. I myself believe the life of the nation to be imperiled, but its danger is from too much legislation. The world is governed too much. We have for years been trying to make statutes supply the lack of brotherly love among our people. Pains and penalties have been the strong incentives to patriotism, and equality with the negro has been the reward for that patriotism when proved to exist." Let us have peace," says the President elect Every true heart echoes the invocation. In a political sense, what part of the Union is now in a condition of peace? Only those portions where negroes are denied the "ballot. Where is strife, contention, discord, and anarchy? Radicalism answers in every State of the South where negroes are permitted to vote by law of Congress.

If, then, Congress has by" regulating" ten States produced or perpetuated strife in each will the same experiment bring peace in ten others I If one third of the Union be prostrated by a given system, is it not marvelous to believe that that same system extended to all will "save the life of the nation?" If those who use this argument wish credit for both sense and candor, let them modify the expression and talk of "saving the life of" the Radical party, by means of this unconstitutional action, distasteful to every man who is not ashamed of Anglo Saxon origin. But, sir, does not every gentleman know that the period of unpunished infractions of the Constitution has gone by? During the war the great masses of the people of northern States were so intent in conquering the rebellion that they passed unheeded many warnings full of significance, and tolerated many practices by those in power which were equally dangerous to popular rights and constitutional government as was the rebellion itself. But now approaches a day of reckoning, and let politicians beware ofpoptilar condemnation when, by playing upon party passion, they attempt to prompt an invasion of reserved rights and a desecration of those time honored principles which passed without challenge or cavil until touched by the polluting finger of a faction that would blot out all reserved rights of States, and over the ruins and embers of dismantled, dishonored, and destroyed States would erect the dazzling throne of consolidated empire. Let the following earnest protest against the exercise of forbidden or even doubtful powers by Congress be heeded as uttering on that subject the sentiment of every Democrat, and according to the press a large majority of Republicans in my own Illinois.

In November last Major General John M. Palmer was elected Governor of our State. On the 11th day of this month he was inaugurated. No one suspects Governor Palmer of having ever been too deeply tinctured with the doctrine of State rights. During the war it was by many thought that he ignored the existence of any right whatever in a State as an independent organization. In his inaugural message, referring to the pending attempt of Congress to regulate or organize corporations in the States, he uses very earnest language; and in his protest against exercising the power, even if its existence be admitted, he is crystallizing, even in the Republican mind of his State, a higher, nobler, more correct, and patriotic view than prompted the introduction of this bill and the attempt to exercise still more dangerous powers for a still more objectionable purpose than those condemned by Governor Palmer in the following language:

‘Now that the war is ended and all its proper objects attained, the public welfare demands arecurrenco to the true principles that underlie our system of government, and one of the best established and most distinctly recognized of these is that the Federal Government is one of enumerated powers." 4"** "Jt is essential to the usefulness of the State governments that their just authority should be respected by that of the nation. Already the authority of the States is in a measure paralyzed by a growing conviction that all their powers are in some sense derivative and subordinate, and not original and independent. The State governments are a part of the American system of government. They fill a well defined place, and their just authority must be respected by the Federal Government, if it is expected that their laws wiii be obeyed. 'A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of government is essential to civil liberty,' and in this view I have thought it proper to invite your attention to these subjects.

It is the clear duty of the national Government, to decline the exercise of all doubtful powers when the neglect to do so would betobringitmtothefields of legislation already occupied by the States, and thereby raising embarrassing questions, and presenting asingularanddangerous instance of two jurisdictions claiming the rightto control the same class of subjects, and creating rival corporations with differing powers. Arguments may be found for the exercise of this class of powers by Congress, but they are greatly overbalanced by the evils it would produce." How full of meaning these sentences at this particular time! How like "apples of gold in pictures of silver" some of his declarations!" One of the best established and most distinctly recognized" of the principles that underlie our system of government is that the "Federal Government is one of enumerated powers." And again:

"The authority of' the States is paralyzed by a growing conviction that all their powers are in some sense derivative and subordinate, and not original and independent."

If, in Governor Palmer s view, there was danger and mischief in the attempt to regulate corporations in States by act of Congress, because of liability to a collision in jurisdiction, how much more dear and positive would have been the danger in his judgment where the interests to be aff ectcd are vital and involve the very existence of the State, and where the conflict in jurisdiction is not merely liable, but absolutely certain and unavoidable? So far as the exercise of this power is claimed under the so called fourteenth amendment, I have little to say. When that article shall have been pronounced by competent authority part of our Constitution, its text may be of importance. At present I have only to compare text with text. The first section of that article is as follows:

Sec 1 All persons born or naturalized in th e United States and subject to thojurisdiction thereof a o citizens of the United States and of the States wb erein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State depiiveany person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If this clause be operative at all it is simply declaratory of the condition of certain classes therein named. The prohibition against any State making or enforcing laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens ot the United States is of no moment until it be shown that some State has proposed or now proposes to do so. In this view the question arises, does this section secure the elective franchise to the negro in the several States? Did any one of the advocates of that amendment, while it was pending here, claim such a construction? So far as I can ascertain they did not. The public were informed by them, and by speakers who advocated that amendment on the stump, that its intention and effect was to permit every State to do as it might elect on that subject, with the understanding that such States as refused suffrage to the negro would bo curtailed in representation to that extent. It was held that the whole article affirmed the right of a State to act on suffrage, and that because they would not all act alike it was necessary to equalize representation. To accomplish that equality the second section was submitted, as follows:

"Sec. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons m each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Bat when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives 111 Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty ono years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty ono years of ago in such State."

Suppose now these two sections be admitted to be parts of the Constitution, may Congress under any power derived from them, when construed together, declare that negroes shall vote in Pennsylvania? No! What, then; is the whole article void? By no means; but if the article be valid Congress may, under the two sections, say to a given State, "The negroes constitute one half your population; you have a given number of Representatives in Congress; that number is based on your whole population; if jou see fit by State law to disfranchise one half of your inhabitants, we, by virtue of the power to apportion Representatives, will decrease your representation to one half of the present number." That, and that only, is the extent of power resulting from the clause in question if there be any validity in the view of those who hold that the General Government is one of delegated and enumerated powers; and if there be any vitality in the tenth article of amendment, which declares that—

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Before Congress can. act on any subject it must appear to be either, first, "delegated to the United States by the Constitution," or second, "prohibited by it to the States."

Having already considered the delegated powers, let me briefly refer to those which the States are prohibited from exercising. With the exceptions already noticed the prohibitions on States are all embraced in the tenth section of the first article. There, in plain, bold, language, requiringno interpretation, itisdeclared that—

"No State shall enter into any treaty, &c., grant letters of marque, and reprisal, coin money, emitbills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

Other prohibitions are embraced in the section under consideration, and it is observable that among all the inhibitions on State action none in the body of the Constitution can be even so tortured as to refer to the question of suffrage within the States.

And now, having briefly as I could given my objections to the bill, I close without reference to the proposed amendment, also pending. Upon the last we can talk before the people. I can but hope that we will be spared the humility of seeing this bill pass, and protest in the name of my people against Federal intervention in the domestic affairs of the several States.

Mr. Paine obtained the floor, but yielded to

Mr. KELLEY, who moved that the House adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at ten o clock and twenty minutes p. in.) the House adjourned.